¶ … senior at the Magic City School of Law, Sally Sue, who was top of her class of two hundred. This individual along with another individual planned the murder of the law professor; a very difficult instructor whose test Sally Sue was worried she could not pass. The individual, Bob, who agreed to shove the professor down the stairs agreed to this when he was either inebriated or on some type of drugs or heavy medication. Sally Sue was so enraged when she made a C. On the exam that Bob had not killed the professor that she ran at Bob and shoved him down the stairs injuring him. The objective of this work in writing is to examine the case, as would a District Attorney when screening warrants and answer the questions asking: (1) What, if any charges can be made against Sally Sue?

(2) What if any charges can be made against Bob?

Finally, this work will discuss the potential defenses available to either Sally Sue or Bob.

Potential Charges Against Sally Sue and Bob

There are several charges that can be leveled against Sally Sue. First of all, conspiracy to commit murder is one charge that Sally Sue could receive. Conspiracy occurs when an unlawful objective is being pursued by two or more individuals. There must be an agreement, intent to agree, and intent to pursue the objective that is unlawful. The liability for conspiracy is such that each conspirator is liable for the crimes of all the other conspirators. (Stepanow, 2012, p.1)

Insofar as a conspiracy to murder charges where Bob is concerned the research turns to the case of John Boother, Appellant v. State of Indiana 136 Ind. 435 in which the appellant was indicted for conspiracy to commit murder and the defendant was intoxicated...

This case involved an individual who had actually committed assault and battery upon a victim "with the felonious intent to commit murder in the first degree." (Desty, Rich, Farnham and Smith, 1915) The test of law in a conspiracy charge is 'intent' and therefore, in the case of Bob, who did not remember making these plans with Sally Sue, who never acknowledged the existence of these plans, and who never made any overt act that demonstrated his intention to carry out these plans however; the opinions of the Indiana Supreme Court judges stated as follows:
"Voluntary intoxication was no excuse for crime; voluntary intoxication was of itself a crime, and a man could not plead in excuse of one crime the fact that he had committed another." (Harris v. United States, 8 App. D.C. 20,36 L.R.A. 465; United States v. Cornell, 2 Mason 91, Fed. Cas. No. 14866; Com. V. Hankins, 3 Gray 363; State v. Morgan 40 S.C. 315, 18 S.E. 937; Beasley v. State 40 Ala. 140; Mercer v. State, 17, Ga. 164; People v. Rogers, 18 N.Y. 9:72 AM. Dec. 494; Flanigan v. People, 86, N.Y. 554. 40. Am Rep. 566; State v. Brandy, 24 S.C. 439, 58 Am. Rep. 263; Cluck v. State, 40 Ind 263 cited in Desty, Rich, Farnham, and Smith, 1915)

In the state of Oklahoma, voluntary intoxication is to be considered by the jury when an individual has committed premeditation murder in terms of the effect of the intoxication upon the ability of the defendant to form and entertain such a design at the time he was intoxicated and the murder committed. (Oklahoma Criminal Reports, Vol. 15, 1919, p. 496) In fact, in the state of Oklahoma, if the defendant is intoxicated and had not premeditated plans to commit murder then the murder charge will…